. England might not have a batsman of the class of Flower, does that make Zimbabwe better than England? I am talking about the whole side here. And even if you were to remove England from Warne it would increase his overall record by about 0.8 runs on average and 0.9 balls in SR. You remove the equivalent stat for O'Reilly and he raises his average by almost 3 runs and his SR by almost 8. Quite a difference.

You see, the average S.African wicket is worth 26.7 runs in the 1930s. The average English wicket is worth 35.9 runs in the 1930s. A difference of 9 runs on average.

Let's compare that to Zimbabwe who's batsmen of the 1990s average 24.4 and the best team of the same era, Australia, who's batsmen average 33.07 in the 1990s - a difference of 8.67 runs on average, essentially the same.

Now I will address SJS's other post.

Now give us the same figures for bowling. Use Bangladesh and Australia for a change and we'll be able to comapre the "minnowness" of each side then.

You are nuts. Whn they had two Flowers, Goodwin and Johnson, they were able to beat any opposition in the world. South Africa in 1999 WC will be a good case to study.

Couldn't help but notice this phrase in his post;

Zimbabwe also had Andy Flower, it didn't make them a great test side or even an average one.

Sure they won a couple of games in the 1999 WC but so what? There's always one shock team who puts it together for a few games and beats some good sides. Kenya in 2003 (with a little help from boycotts) made the SF's after all. And Kaz's point stands; even with those batsmen, they were a low-mid table Test side at best.

So. Your other argument is around the fact that Orielly played most of his cricket (all bar one test) in the 30's and it is at that time that South Africa were "minnows" as you like to call them.

Well in the 1930's, South Africa played 3 test series against England of 5 test matches each. The results of these 15 tests were as under

Drawn : 12

Won by South Africa : 2

Won by England : 1

South Africa won two of those three series one at home and one away.

Not bad for minnows to beat the second best side in the world dont you think. Of course, you might well say that all sides barring Australia were minnows in which case of course we will have to accept that ALL of Orielly's and Grimmett's test wickets came cheap

Not a bangladesh, Zimbabwe or even West Indies of 2008 this England side and yet...

More later.

What does the above result stat say anything about how cheap S.African wickets were? Firstly, many of those players that played against England did not play against Australia. Secondly, back then a Test match was 3-days, 4-days or timeless, I believe. Would go very far in explaining the amount of draws and possibly a few averages.. Two wins? Well, what does that prove? That on their day S.Africa managed to beat England twice? I am sure even you agree England were the better side back then. The results mean essentially very little - I already put up the average S.African batsman's value in this era, you cannot argue that they are equivalent to England.

This is a list of the players that played against both that English side and O'Reilly's Australia:

These are all their batsmen from the 1930s. They are all middle-order to top-order batsmen too, I left out tailenders. From about Syd Curnow onwards, a new generation takes place. The reason some of them have so few games against O'Reilly are because that a lot of them were at the end of their careers.

Since Bruce Mitchell played all the tests against England and Australia I will use him to see how many of the other good batsmen batted with him in the 1930s.

-Bruce Mitchell and Dudley Nourse play in total 9 matches with each other, 5 of them against Australia.

-Bruce Mitchell and Herbert Taylor play in total 4 matches with each other, 3 of them against Australia.

-Bruce Mitchell and Eric Rowan play in total 12 matches with each other, 3 of them against Australia.

-All 3 never played in the same Test together.

I mean, even if you wish to still contend that S.Africa was not the equivalent of a minnow side (which I find that hard to believe) you should agree that the S.Africa against O'Reilly, at least, is very poor.

I also checked the 2 test matches they won. Surprisingly, had nothing to do with their batsmen. They were twolow scoring tests where S.African bowlers got England out cheaply and surged to victory.

Now give us the same figures for bowling. Use Bangladesh and Australia for a change and we'll be able to comapre the "minnowness" of each side then.

Er what? What does the bowling matter anyway? We are talking about O'Reilly vs. BATSMEN. So only that is relevant. If you want, you can get it, I've just spent about an hour going through S.African batsmen.

Furthermore, why Bangladesh? Isn't Zimbabwe enough? I only really care for Zimbabwe anyway as I compared this S.Africa to the 1990s Zimbabwe.

Sure they won a couple of games in the 1999 WC but so what? There's always one shock team who puts it together for a few games and beats some good sides. Kenya in 2003 (with a little help from boycotts) made the SF's after all. And Kaz's point stands; even with those batsmen, they were a low-mid table Test side at best.

Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.

Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.

Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.

So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.

Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.

Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.

Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.

Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.

So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.

Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.

So, you're saying they were Test standard. OK, but they weren't even of average strength. That goes for S.Africa largely too. And then O'Reilly faced New Zealand which is the equivalent to Bangladesh. 8 tests out of 27 are against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Does that not inflate a record?

Er what? What does the bowling matter anyway? We are talking about O'Reilly vs. BATSMEN. So only that is relevant. If you want, you can get it, I've just spent about an hour going through S.African batsmen.

Furthermore, why Bangladesh? Isn't Zimbabwe enough? I only really care for Zimbabwe anyway as I compared this S.Africa to the 1990s Zimbabwe.

Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.

Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.

Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.

So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.

Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.

Alright, I'll be honest; I didn't read the previous posts so wasn't arguing anything in relationship to the Saffies in the 30's.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Murali played Zimbabwe a lot. Geez, really? Zimbabwe able to beat anyone?

Goodwin, Jonhson and Andy Flower were better than most of the contempary English batsmen played during that era BTW. Unfortunately the earlier two decided to play for money than for country. With those four in line-up with Streak as well, they could have blossmed in to a very competitive unit. But the pocess was cut short by money on offer from other sources. And I have proved earlier that playing BAN and ZIM did not affect Murali's wicket taking ability, and I think there is nothing to argue about it.

And Neil Johnson was Gooch's contemprary ? He did alright compared to some of the greates talents that England churned out e.g. Nick Knight and Mark Ramprakash.

Johnson and Goodwin came towards the end of the 90s. I am talking about the whole of the 90s. Gooch played from 90-95. Not sure how that doesn't count. Regardless, it doesn't need explaining that there are English batsmen from 98-2000 that are better than Johnson.